Right, and why is that? Remember when Gainey refused to give out big deals or overpay players? He was destroyed by the media and fans for ''not being capable of bringing in top players''.

It always just takes one guy to get the ball rolling. After that, you have agents working hard to match that.

The players took full advantage of the situation. Lots of players decided to test the market. The league didn't foresee this happening when they signed the last CBA. Heck, even the players thought they got screwed. Turns out they got a lot more than they thought.NHL eventually realized this was a problem, so they're addressing it now. Who cares if the owners are part of why it happened. Pointing fingers doesn't fix the problem.

actually, it is important... a bunch of billionnaires who can't turn "record revenues" into profits, who cant foresee anything, who's solution to any problem is lets cut salaries...

This is just from the eastern conference. Yes there are arenas that a built on public funds, but its still takes owners with deep pockets to build a lot of these arenas, and on top of that own these teams and run the day to day operations. Lots of risks involved.

Losing money by what definition? A long time ago a GM told his players the team had lost $2 million this year. When they questioned him on it he told them he had made $4 million the year before and this year he was only going to make $2 million, therefore the team had lost $2 million.

So much of this making and losing money is bogus accounting. If a team's franchise value goes up by $5 million and they make a couple million on other events at the arena and if they pay off $!0 million dollars worth of loans, are they really losing money?

Don't worry though, when we enter the deflationary part of this economic cycle these clowns will really lose a lot of money and they will learn that balloons can deflate a lot faster then they it took for them to be inflated.

Yeah, franchise value goes up $5 million, salaries go up $12 million, thats gonna help pay the bills. Are they really losing money? Lets see, no income, city will waive the taxes, if the building is leased, they'll waive the lease amount until you have income, if you own the building and there are some events, you'll get some rent, but then you have to pay utilities, management (hockey & other), hockey operations expenses, scouting, coaches, trainers, so fer sure their not losing anything.
So what if the franchise value goes up? Who can you sell it to? Don't forget to tell them that they should buy it for the enjoyment and don't expect to make any money, because its not their right as an owner.

Yeah, franchise value goes up $5 million, salaries go up $12 million, thats gonna help pay the bills. Are they really losing money? Lets see, no income, city will waive the taxes, if the building is leased, they'll waive the lease amount until you have income, if you own the building and there are some events, you'll get some rent, but then you have to pay utilities, management (hockey & other), hockey operations expenses, scouting, coaches, trainers, so fer sure their not losing anything.
So what if the franchise value goes up? Who can you sell it to? Don't forget to tell them that they should buy it for the enjoyment and don't expect to make any money, because its not their right as an owner.

That makes no sense to me.
I would buy a Habs jersey before a jersey with just a players name, though. And I would thank Molson for investing in the team that I follow, despite having some very high priced under-achievers.

That makes no sense to me.
I would buy a Habs jersey before a jersey with just a players name, though. And I would thank Molson for investing in the team that I follow, despite having some very high priced under-achievers.

I think that the NHLPA should also subsidize some of the weaker teams in the league, from their portion of course. kind of like when a struggling business has it's employees purchase shares to strengthen the operations. They would basically be minority investors, ensuring their own employment. If they think that there is lots of money being made then they would be confident in that investment.

I think that the NHLPA should also subsidize some of the weaker teams in the league, from their portion of course. kind of like when a struggling business has it's employees purchase shares to strengthen the operations. They would basically be minority investors, ensuring their own employment. If they think that there is lots of money being made then they would be confident in that investment.

You do know that there are 30 teams? Record revenues are league wide, not for each team. Original six plus the other Canadian teams are driving the revenues. I am sure that there are a lot of teams that are not making money, are you saying that they all are? If they all were, there would be no reason for a lockout.
Maybe you should have a parent or guardian present so adults can discuss this. I will wait.

You do know that there are 30 teams? Record revenues are league wide, not for each team. Original six plus the other Canadian teams are driving the revenues. I am sure that there are a lot of teams that are not making money, are you saying that they all are? If they all were, there would be no reason for a lockout.

and in your mind it's obviously the player's fault.

besides, they're a bunch of Billionnaires, are you telling me they arent smart enough to turn revenues into profits ? really ?

Why not? Revenue comes from fans, fans come to see NHL games, NHL games are played by NHL players. (assuming a healthy revenue stream) Why shouldn't the players get the lion's share? The owners are merely investors, them demanding (up to) 50% of revenue is ludicrous in my opinion.

I'll respond to Kriss E shortly, suffice to say I think blaming agents for contracts offered, signed and paid by owners is a wrong way to look at things.

Owners needs the players just as much as the players need owners, hence a 50-50 split.

I think blaming one side only for this is the wrong way to look at things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts

You're fixated on a red herring. The supposed giant contracts that are ruining things for the owners. This is a total irrelevancy. The players get the same amount of money in total regardless any contract signed. All a big contract does is take money away from other players to give it to that player, it has no net effect on ownership.

When did I say these giant contracts are ruining things for them? I think it's bad for the NHL, not the owners.

And no, that's not all it does because a limitless owner can give out a lot more cash in salary and yet still be at the same cap as every other team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAChampion

TtG, I tried explaining to him the other thread that every time one player is overpaid, you get other players being underpaid by the exact same dollar amount. He somehow convinced himself that this could not be.

That's because I don't think it's as simple as that. What will determine if a player is overpaid, underpaid or fairly paid is performance. I understand that at the end of the day, 57% will remain 57%, but that's without considering performance.

If the NHLPA opts for decertification, doesn't it increase the chances of it happening? I want the league to implode and have the profitable teams reform a new league with brand new rosters through a draft.

besides, they're a bunch of Billionnaires, are you telling me they arent smart enough to turn revenues into profits ? really ?

I am not wasting time trying to throw blame on anyone. I am saying that there is clearly a problem, and the players proposal didn't address it. To expect a positive reaction from the owners was ridiculous.
And they are not all billionaires and they are smart enough to turn revenues into profits, hence a lockout to address the greatest expense they have-player salaries.

I am not wasting time trying to throw blame on anyone. I am saying that there is clearly a problem, and the players proposal didn't address it. To expect a positive reaction from the owners was ridiculous.
And they are not all billionaires and they are smart enough to turn revenues into profits, hence a lockout to address the greatest expense they have-player salaries.

record revenues = ONLY solution to turn it into profits is to rollback salaries... that's what you call smart ? really ?

Yup, cutting 10/15% in salaries should make CLB, PHX and a few others profitable... right ?

by the way, players (with their salaries) arent regular expenses, those players are the ONLY reason the NHL exist. No players - no NHL.